Wulf Kansteiner in chapter 16 explains German historians studies of the Holocaust since the end of the war. Kansteiner writes about the four phases of Holocaust studies in Germany and the first phase made little or no mention of the "Final Solution". He also mentions the problems that many historians had, both young and old, trying to detach themselves from the Third Reich. What is interesting to read about is the German historians doing research to redeem themselves and essentially their country in their research. After much silence in the 1950's and early 1960's, studies took shape after the Eichmann and Auschwitz trials of the 60's. German historians wanted to study the Holocaust give their country their integrity back. It was really the young students who broke away from the Nazi past. It was after the student movement when historians began to reconsider the Third Reich and their place in history. For me and it is mention in the chapter, to really understand the Holocaust, you have to look at the death squads, the euthanasia program to the everyday lives of the German people. Kansteiner mentions the historian debate that gripped the historical sphere back in the 1980's. Since then and historians have been granted access to archives, historians can dive deeper into Holocaust studies and come to grip with the past.
Is it good for history and historians to have a "younger" more modern way to look at the past or take the old, conventional way?
Can historians have an impact with their studies and how they can help a nation recover or understand the past wrongs they committed?
No comments:
Post a Comment